Inter-Occupy Conflict Resolution

The larger the movement becomes, the more people will disagree within it; this is natural. But what's an effective means to resume progress after a disagreement? For many occupations, this is painfully relevant.

First of all, we must acknowledge that the 99% / 1% statements should be laid to rest, and nobody should look back. Why? Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time, because it's true 1% of the super-wealthy hold a larger share of the total income in the US than the 99% of taxpayers... but it quickly sets the stage for a "us and them" position. Certain members of the "1%" have been supportive of fair taxation and the Occupy movement, but it's difficult for them to be heard with all the 99%-ers shouting at them day and night for months and months. Because no one person knows off the top of their head who the 1% actually are, then it starts to become a very loose description of anyone who is really rich and seems really greedy. Over time, it spreads further - the 1% have extended to all of those that support or have influence from them, like the police force, military, or private security firms. It's spread even more now, to the point where protesters can be the 1% too. It's no longer a very specific list of people, but a name for a small group of people with some type of power.

That breeds insecurity, paranoia, and contempt. When people start taking things a direction you don't agree with, it's becoming common to start thinking that they are infiltrators, co-opting the movement in favor of the 1%, and they may even be the 1% of whatever city you're in. People have also resorted to claiming that certain Occupiers are actually Illuminati plants, undercover cops, or dissenters whose job is to divide this movement. Any time somebody does something people don't like now, they're immediately some sort of supernatural enemy, so corrupt only a good science-fiction story can capture the drama. Tom Clancy might come close.

It's unnecessary, and it needs to stop.

If everyone has their finger over the paranoia trigger every single moment of their lives, they will certainly achieve little. They will self-destruct, implode, and nothing in this country will be any better than before - perhaps just worse, as citizens are now turned on each other.

Occupy gets enough flack from right-wingers and people who are uneducated about the philosophy and reach of the movement... so why feed them by burning down your own occupation?

What I have seen suggested, nationwide, is that if there are disagreements, then as a first offence, the General Assembly will stop and enter a "safer spaces" state, where there is an expectation to deal with conflict with neutrality and inclusiveness. On a second offence, the dissenters are usually cut off by points-of-process, or are warned. On a third offence, they are asked to leave until they cool off. On a fourth offence, the General Assembly will probably pass a proposal to remove voting rights, remove speaking rights, and/or excommunicate the individual from the General Assembly.

News: Each and every one of these steps is an orgy for fear, anger, and failure.

When you halt a general assembly, it doesn't just pick back up again. Imagine going to a movie theatre, and there's a bad scene. So people stand up at the front, and say, okay, we're going to pause the movie for a few minutes and talk about this! An hour later, do you care or remember about the movie before it was interrupted? No, you probably would have been disgusted long before. Okay, so don't stop the train, Occupy. If you have something come up in the General Assembly, take the Whose GA is it Anyway? approach.

Whose G.A. Is It Anyway?

When there is a disagreement or dissent that would otherwise stop or impede the flow of General Assembly, instead of attacking it like a virus, try some improv! Work a friendly and truly open conversation between the individuals allegedly "dissenting" and those that wish to respond!

DO'S AND DONT'S OF THE WHOSE G.A. IS IT ANYWAY?:

• DO allow the 'dissenter' to finish speaking, no matter how long it takes.
• DO write down or remember the points the 'dissenter' is making as points of conversation and de-escalation
• DO initiate a stack specifically to discuss what points the 'dissenter' had
• DO allow the 'dissenter' to directly respond to questions
• DON'T allow anyone to chastise the 'dissenter'
• DON'T surround or gang up on the 'dissenter'
• DON'T summarize or attempt to pacify the 'dissenter'
• DON'T cut off the 'dissenter'

By taking an argument and working it into the General Assembly, rather than stop it to initiate a Safer Space or other process, you are able to directly engage the 'dissenter' with respectful dialogue, so that they feel they are heard, and are allowed to make their point. This also gives the General Assembly direct ability to vote on or adopt whatever points the 'dissenter' has made, so that a consensus decision can be reached without confrontation. The goal is conversation and consensus. Pretend it's an improv show, where you work dissent into the show, and pretend that you must do it with love, care, and awareness, because you have a very real and live audience. When you stop the GA to deal with anything, you send the audience packing. This way, we all learn about each other together, have understanding, and move on!

The "Safer Spaces" agreements, or "Good Neighbor" policies that many Occupations have adopted is flawed. It's almost nausiatingly liberal - it does not appeal to many people, no matter how well-meant it is. The biggest problem, however, is that it is meant to pacify anger. When you tell someone who's blowing up to "calm down" or leave, then they usually get angrier, and escalate. What people want is to be heard - that's what Occupy is supposed to be about. Give them the opportunity to, without interruptions, without Accountability Circles, without de-escalation interventions... because when a person is allowed to speak their mind, they de-escalate themselves naturally. When you get something off your chest, doesn't it feel better? Once they speak, then you have the beautiful opportunity to start that as a peaceful dialog, with no accusations, name-calling, or contempt. While you may not be able to adopt whatever measures the 'dissenter' has called for, you still have the opportunity, and they will probably recognise that although you didn't adopt their methods, you did listen to them. 

Do you have somebody that seems to frequently disrupt working groups or General Assemblies? Whose G.A. Is It Anyway?

Do you have somebody that preaches that they keep getting silenced? Whose G.A. Is It Anyway?

Do you have somebody that seems to 'troll' or disrupt for the lulz? Let's address that.

A WG.A.IIA? approach will help when the people want to discuss. So how do you disarm somebody that disrupts for fun?

First, we need to define a couple things:

1. The Occupy consensus process is open to interpretation; however, generally the 'Block' is a very serious vote. To determine whether a block or a "no" vote is appropriate, ask the blocker whether they would leave the movement if the proposal was passed. Ask the blocker what friendly amendment they would make, within reason, to reach consensus. If the blocker wouldn't leave the movement, and if they refuse to participate in a consensus building process by which means they would offer a way for the proposal to pass, within reason, then inform the blocker that the most appropriate vote would be a NO vote, rather than a block. If it is the will of the blocker and agreed by temperature check by the General Assembly that the blocker meet with a Consensus working group to hammer out a friendly amendment by which the proposal would be unblocked, then let that be done. If the blocker refuses to participate, then during working group reports, the group should report that the individual refused to participate, and thus, the block is rescinded. It is important to note that during the time between the block and when it is passed or voted on again, the proposal is not tabled - other votes and friendly amendments are allowed, which may find consensus naturally.
2. A "troll" usually does so either for a morbid sense of fun, or to hammer a certain point.

Okay, so with the block out of the way, we can get to the big issue: "trolling".

Thinking Dayllight

If you've ever read The Hobbit, you know that trolls always turn to stone in the daylight - so by peacefully challenging a troll in the "daylight" environment, you can disable the attack.

How?

1. Ask the suspected "troll" to step in front of the group, or wherever stack is taking place, to tell everyone what solutions they have to the problems they've pointed out. This is a logical process to find consensus.
2. If the "troll" does not wish to step up in front of the group, they automatically lose credibility. Proceed to ask them to detail their solutions to whatever they see as issues.
3. If the "troll" does not wish to offer solutions to the issues they bring up, call for a consensus working group meeting that they can attend to spend more time finding solutions.
4. If the "troll" does not wish to, or fails to appear at the meeting, then announce that they did not attend the meeting (no fluff) in the next working group reports period.
5. If the "troll" fails to give solutions, fails to appear to work on them, then inform them publicly that the General Assembly exists to make primary consensus-based decisions, and to facilitate open conversation in a like manner. If there are people who do not wish to participate in consensus process or to help the General Assembly grow, then statements contrary to that may be subject to a "point-of-process", where conversations against the points of process may have to cease or rush as it is not conducive to progress.
6. If the "troll" wishes to defend themselves, then refer to Whose G.A. Is It Anyway?

Without introducing an "accountability circle" or stopping GA, Thinking Daylight directly forces accountability of one's thoughts and actions, without having to outright challenge or silence the individual. If the individual refuses to help find consensus and progress, then it is by the nature of the points of process and General Assembly that their influence to disrupt is stopped. This is fully transparent, it all happens in public, so Thinking Daylight fully gives room to people to either prove that they disagree to help GA, or whether they can't or won't  help GA. If someone is "trolling" because they want the kick, then being publically addressed like this will take the fun out of it. If they were genuine, then they've been afforded a legitimate chance to speak and hold conversation like anyone else. If they're "trolling" because they have a point to make, then this gives them an honest opportunity to make their point and find consensus with the group, whether it be immediately, from Thinking Daylight  or over a brief period of time (Whose G.A. Is It Anyway?).

EXTRA DO'S AND DON'TS FOR THINKING DAYLIGHT:

1. DO allow the "troll" to fully state their ideas as long as they are conducive to progress, consensus, and G.A.
2. DO maintain a pleasant, non-discriminatory, and non-judgemental atmosphere (very important!!)
3. DON'T allow a stack (creates filibuster)
4. DON'T create regulations to compliment Thinking Daylight; because it's developed to not need any regulations or policies to be effective
5. DON'T allow points of process citing "__— is a troll". That's another form of trolling. If you call a P.O.P. you need to cite a reason from the points of process

Now, what's very rare but very intense: dealing with violence in General Assembly. Sure, you can regulate the crap out of this, but it doesn't help the GA grow. If you see cues that someone or some people are about to become violent, take the safe road and:

Take Ten for Peace

1. Announce to the GA that "We are going to Take Ten for Peace".
2. Immediately disperse the general assembly, and clear 10 feet from the individual(s) displaying cues for violence.
3. Have all cameras either shut off or leave the area.
4. Write down what has happened/is happening.
5. Have no more than two people approach the person(s) and ask them if they will take a quick walk with you immediately around the area to cool off and talk. If this does not seem possible, calmly ask the individual(s) from a distance to de-escalate in respect for the assembly, and the individuals there that may feel threatened by violence.
6. If violence has already ensued, keep the area clear, continue to document everything in case you need to call the police or file a report.
7. If violence is continuing, it is a personal decision to step between the individuals, but one must understand the risks of doing so.
8. In no circumstance should a crowd be allowed to gather, especially with cameras, around the fight. And especially if people are encouraging the fight.
9. Whoever is left over should be checked by Medical to see if first aid is sufficient or if an ambulance should be called, with participation of whoever is left over, should they be able to do so.
10. Take at least ten minutes to relax. Hopefully, there weren't any fights. Initiate the Who's G.A. Is It Anyway? process if there were, so that with transparency, the issue can be dealt with, and if the person refuses to cooperate, by nature of the original points of process, their participation will be self-limited.

No matter what happens, we need to help each other to grow, not break each other down. The 99% and 1% theory got us so far, but now it's causing contempt. We must instead work to gain the participation of 100% of the people. This movement is no longer about reform, but about human rights, and every human has to be onboard with that. We can't do 100% with caveats, i.e. "everyone can participate, except __— and ___". It's all or nothing. By following the principles of the original points of process, Whose G.A. Is It Anyway?, Thinking Daylight, and Take Ten for Peace, we can de-escalate normally destructive situations peacefully without having to silence, excommunicate, or disavow individuals. Doing this, we can deal with our issues and maintain our solidarity.